We are a nation of faith. Jesus angrily drove the money lenders out of the temple. How can we stand by and allow the borrowers to be driven out of their homes?

The fact is most of these victims were hunted down like a foxhunt, with strangers knocking on doors, experts giving them quiet assurance of how wonderful their house was and how much it was worth, how wonderful it was that the bank would approve such generous terms (because they weren’t playing with their own money), and with undisclosed yield spread premiums of unimaginable size sometimes in multiples of the mortgage amount itself.

I have already spoken about how in Florida they hired and got licenses for 10,000 mortgage brokers to act as bird dog originators — all 10,000 of them were convicted felons, mostly for economic crimes, many of whom just got out of jail. Translation: they needed people who would be willing to lie in order to get borrowers to sign. Yet that was not enough. “One theme emerging from these suits is how banks teamed up with pastors to win over new customers for subprime loans.”

It is probably not politically correct and even offensive to say that American society has one faith in common: money. Belief in money and in particular that almighty dollar is something that all of us seem to converge on from disparate facets of life, class levels and religious faith. The protestant ethic on which our country supposedly rests, is all but dead. People who conduct their lives according to the principles of hard work, building a foundation of quality and prospering in the end usually are derided as old-fashioned or even naive in “today’s marketplace.”

If you really want to know why this nonsensical mortgage meltdown could occur, look no further. For all the cries of “shame” and demands for justice, our society, as a whole is doing virtually nothing about making sure it never happens again and in fact has already launched the next round of speculation based upon a government bailout of the losses when they occur.

It no longer matters if you work hard. It doesn’t matter if you are honest. It doesn’t even matter if what you do is successful. You will be paid a king’s ransom as long as you are playing “the game.” When the cards come tumbling down, it doesn’t matter — you are rich beyond your wildest dreams and even if you have nothing left to do, you don’t need to work anyway. The fact that tens of millions of people can’t work, are NOT rich, and have no income or safety net is of no concern. It isn’t that these people all lack conscience. The inconvenient truth is that they are following the rules of our society.

One recurring theme coming up in many lawsuits is “business Model” adopted by the Top Dogs (Bank of America, Countrywide, Wells Fargo etc.) who simply repeated the multilevel marketing schemes that proliferate across our great land in search of another unearned dollar.

I have already spoken about how in Florida they hired and got licenses for 10,000 mortgage brokers to act as bird dog originators — all 10,000 of them were convicted felons, mostly for economic crimes, many of whom just got out of jail. Translation: they needed people who would be willing to lie in order to get borrowers to sign. Yet that was not enough. “One theme emerging from these suits is how banks teamed up with pastors to win over new customers for subprime loans.”

Just look at how much trouble we are having distributing flu shots and getting people to accept the flu shot. Channels of every type and place imaginable are hawking the shots (which by the way I think is a good thing, and yes, I got one) at tens of thousands of outlets and delivery points. MERS says it has 60+ million mortgage transactions in its data records. How do you reach 60 million homeowners?

Well it turns out to be easy in country where the overwhelming majority of the populace are people of “faith.”

I invite you all to take a look at “Did Christianity Cause the Crash?” by Hanna Rosin published in the current issue of The Atlantic, December 2009 at page 39.

A Case in Point: Beth Jacobson, witness for the prosecution in City of Baltimore vs. Wells Fargo. Just the facts Ma’am. Virtually none of the mortgage “specialists” any of us spoke to over the phone had any education, training or experience in mortgages, finance or even bookkeeping. They were trained on how to look like they were experts. They would lie to you eye to eye. And they were rewarded. “Sometimes the bank would send a Hummer limo to pick up Jacobson for a celebration, she says. She’d arrive at a bar and find all her co-workers drunk and her boss “doing body shots off a waitress.”

Like any “good idea” (without any sens of “enough”) the marketing model of establishing sales channels through houses of worship was irresistible. After all, congregants were in a vulnerable mood when they went to church, they were easily pacified by their faith in their clergyman, and any “Wealth Now” seminar assumes an aura of both credibility at the least and mandate from God at most. And the Pastor, the Church or some “program” of the church would get a $350 “donation.” It didn’t take long for those in the congregation who were prospecting for the next person they could fool to get the point — bring subprime mortgage candidates to the bank and get paid $350 per mortgage. So if they did 10 mortgages per week, they earned themselves $3500 per week.

The results are well known, but not particularly flushed out. People who are living lives of quiet desperation under a mountain of debt they would never escape suddenly saw the jackpot. And so while the mortgage meltdown was in its hay day their income jumped from what had been $35,000 per year to an av erage of $350,000 per year. And after 2-3 years they were convinced that they now were big earners. When the crash occurred, they were slow to realize or believe that they were no six figure earners and they never were. They were low five figure earners, and those jobs were no longer available so now they would need unemployment or other public assistance.

What bothers me is not that people of the cloth are like anyone else — subject to temptation and possibly who got there because of the protection it provides for all sorts of deviants or corruption. N0, what bothers me is that even as mainstream media publishes these stories, the underlying assumption is that the mortgage mess is still MOSTLY the fault of consumers whose eyes were too big for their stomachs.

The fact is most of these victims were hunted down like a foxhunt, with strangers knocking on doors, experts giving them quiet assurance of how wonderful their house was and how much it was worth, how wonderful it was that the bank would approve such generous terms (because they weren’t playing with their own money), and with undisclosed yield spread premiums of unimaginable size sometimes in multiples of the mortgage amount itself. And yet the victims continue to be portrayed as gamers who lost. That bothers me because until we get all the facts out on the table, there never be a solution to this mess, this confabulation.

Until there is real understanding of the facts, we will continue to protect the large banks that are “too big to fail” and continue to ignore the plight of the common man and woman. As long as we persist, we will not rebuild the middle class. Without a stable prospering middle class, we are nothing. That’s the real irony. The wealth needs to be in the middle class to have society that survives itself. Legally I have no doubt that the wealth is there but it has not been claimed. Practically, until Judges and lawyers and homeowners “get it” they will continue to blame the “borrower” and let the pretender lender do body shots “off the waitress.”

17 Responses

“It no longer matters if you work hard. It doesn’t matter if you are honest. It doesn’t even matter if what you do is successful. You will be paid a king’s ransom as long as you are playing “the game.” When the cards come tumbling down, it doesn’t matter — you are rich beyond your wildest dreams and even if you have nothing left to do, you don’t need to work anyway. The fact that tens of millions of people can’t work, are NOT rich, and have no income or safety net is of no concern. It isn’t that these people all lack conscience. The inconvenient truth is that they are following the rules of our society.

One recurring theme coming up in many lawsuits is “business Model” adopted by the Top Dogs (Bank of America, Countrywide, Wells Fargo etc.) who simply repeated the multilevel marketing schemes that proliferate across our great land in search of another unearned dollar.”

100% Accurate.

“IN AMERICA, THE REAL TRUTH IS IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR JOB, YOU’D BETTER NOT DO IT. WHY? BECAUSE “NOT DOING” YOUR JOB IS THE BEST INSURANCE TO “KEEP” YOUR JOB. MOREOVER, IF YOU SEE ANYONE ELSE “DOING THEIR JOB” THEY MUST BE REPORTED AS SOMEONE WHO ISN’T A “TEAM PLAYER” -EMS

I spent over 14 years as a Non Destructive Inspector for The USAF and Fortune 500’s.

After over a decade of inspection under my belt I can say with absolute certainty that telling the truth does (especially in aircraft/production maint.) is get you fired.

Telling the truth about an “inspection” means that “flaws” and/or “defects” have been identified AND therefore must be repaird pursuant to the applicable criteria (law) governming the inspection procedure.

If a “flaw” or “defect” is identified on paper, IT CANNOT BE IGNORED.

Many inspectors get “bribed” and ethical inspectors get the “Boot”!

Sadly, this is the case across all sectors of our so-called economy; Finance, Healthcare, Insurance, etc.

What industry “professionals” call a “mistake” is actually a “calculated flaw” with “calculated risk/reward”. This is also known as FRAUD.

Fortunatly by the grace of God, ALL FRAUD IS FATAL.

Why?

Because it has to be “submitted” which will turn out to its fatal flaw. Nevertheless, you have to know the fraud, and see the fraud, to prove the fraud.

Ed Morse is 88, a World War II veteran, and a successful businessman who built a car dealership empire. But, his lawyers say, he was bamboozled into handing over $57 million to one of his son’s best friends: attorney Scott Rothstein.

Morse’s lawyers say much of it vanished. He was one of many who claim they fell victim to Rothstein’s thirst for millions.

On Wednesday, Morse’s lawyers filed a motion to be kept apprised of any developments in a forced bankruptcy action against the firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. Morse’s own lawsuit will be forthcoming.

Morse’s case is different than the Ponzi scheme federal authorities say Rothstein and his unidentified co-conspirators ran to bilk other investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Rothstein was Morse’s attorney. Now the auto magnate accuses Rothstein of creating fictional court orders, complete with forged judge’s signatures, that convinced him to give Rothstein millions, most of which he never saw again.

Rothstein has told the Sun Sentinel that Ed Morse’s son, Ted Morse, is one of his best friends.

Morse’s new lawyers, Norman Tripp and Ed Pozzuoli, said Rothstein represented Morse in a lawsuit against a kitchen designer who worked on Morse’s new Boca Raton townhouse. The lawsuit was real, and Morse sought damages from the designer. But behind his back, Morse’s new lawyers say, Rothstein settled the lawsuit so that Morse was to get nothing, and in fact owed $500,000 to the designer.

He had no idea, and never would have agreed to settle, say Tripp and Pozzuoli.

That’s when the swindle began, the lawyers say.

The Sun Sentinel Wednesday obtained copies of the fake court orders Morse says he was given, allegedly by Rothstein. They bear the forged signatures of two federal judges, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra, and U.S. Appellate Court Judge Susan H. Black. One of the documents threatened Morse into silence with a “strict” confidentiality order, even as he grew increasingly suspicious.

The documents Rothstein gave Morse bear no case numbers, and are instead marked “Under Seal.”

The first, with a fake Marra signature, said the kitchen designer was liable to Morse for “punitive damages for fraud,” and owed Morse $23 million. It said the designer had illegally moved millions to the Cayman Islands, but that Rothstein “has facilitated the contact between the relative governments,” and that the money would be returned to the U.S.

The faked order demanded that Morse “deposit to their attorney’s trust account the sum of $15 million no later than 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, the 20th day of March, 2009” as a bond to secure the funds. “If such funds are not so posted,” it went on, “this order shall be null and void. …”

The order said that Morse would have his $15 million returned, and also would be reimbursed payments he’d made to Rothstein of $15 million, $4.1 million and $18.5 million. That totals $52.6 million, but Pozzuoli said “it appears [Morse] posted $57 million total.”

Along with the faked Marra order came a 15-page confidentiality order, which Morse and others with knowledge of the case were told to sign. It warned that if anyone talked about the case, ever, they’d face “severe consequences … including … civil and criminal penalties” and that Morse could only discuss the case with Rothstein. Breaches would be punished by “damages of $1 million per each incident of disclosure” as well as possible additional damages and criminal charges, it said.

In the subsequent few months, Morse got some of his money back, the lawyers say, though they wouldn’t say how much.

Rothstein is accused by investors of running a massive Ponzi scheme. He has not been charged, but federal agents seized his assets this week, and his law firm faces dissolution and possible bankruptcy. He is in hiding with his lawyer, Marc Nurik.

Nurik said Wednesday he didn’t want to comment on the Morse allegations of forgery or deceit, until the lawsuit is filed or there is a government action in the matter. FBI spokeswoman Judy Orihuela said “we don’t have any comment” because the Ponzi case is still under investigation.

Tripp said federal authorities are aware of the Morse allegations and documents. The Miami Herald reported Wednesday about the Morse case, saying the FBI and IRS are looking into it, investigating whether Rothstein used the Morse millions to appease antsy investors.

Pozzuoli said the millions were Morse’s personal funds, and haven’t impacted his auto business, but still represent “a big blow to him.”

“This clearly was a breach of the worst kind of the attorney-client relationship,” said Pozzuoli. He said Morse is an “honest” man who “still works every day.”

When Morse got increasingly suspicious this summer, Rothstein claimed to have filed an action in the 11th U.S. District Court of Appeals, and told Morse he was victorious. He gave Morse an order with a faked signature from appellate court Judge Black. The Aug. 13 order reassured Morse that he had money coming to him, but emphasized the confidentiality of the case.

“We again strongly caution all counsel and mandate that they caution and counsel their respective clients that this matter is governed by a strict confidentiality order … which this court strongly cautions, contains severe penalties for any violation of same.”

THIS STORY IS MUCH BIGGER THAN WE EVER THOUGHT… SPEND TIME AND READ THIS ENTIRE PAGE AND LISTEN TO THE CALL IN FULL. CLICK THE CBS NEWS LOGO TO WATCH THE STORY ON ILLEGAL RE-AGING AND HOW IT EFFECTS YOU AS A CONSUMER…

DATELINE: New York City, New York

August 23, 2006

Today was an incredible experience as we has a client that has been trying to deal with the folks of the GMAC ASSET RECOVERY OPERATION in Fort Worth Texas.

The call that we will be posting will show you just what it takes to get through to someone at GMAC to resolve a problem.

Here is the information that we have on GMAC

GMAC ASSET RECOVERY CENTER

PO BOX 901009

FORT WORTH TEXAS

1-800-241-0172

SENIOR DIRECTOR OF ASSET RECOVERY ANDREW BRIDGES X 6687

SECRETARY TO ANDREW BRIDGES, TERRI JARA X 6887

CARLOS BARRETT- MANAGER

ABNER RODRUIGUEZ- MANAGER X6417

TRAVIS MILLER- MANAGER

Listen carefully as an associate Kerry Amos does all that she can do to assist us in our quest for justice, but then listen to how deep we had to drill into the GMAC Organization to get ANYONE with authority to help our student.

HERE IS THE COMPLETE CALL. OUR LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA IS HAVING THE TRANSCRIPTION PREPARED FOR OUR READERS AND LISTENERS NOW!

READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THIS CALL- NOW LIVE

9:00 PM Update: AUGUST 23, 2006

We just received a call from our client stating that he received a phone call from ABNER RODRUIGUEZ- MANAGER X6417 GMAC and that one of the reasons that the account was re-aged over seven years later, was due to an insurance reimbursement that was “JUST” posted to his account. The facts on this are still unclear, but all of our web traffic logs are showing a lot of activity from GM.COM in Detroit Michigan. So, we will wait for the formal response from the company, as We are sure that they are reviewing this matter with Corporate Counsel right now, as to how to remedy the problem.

Lets conclude by saying that the law regarding the Date of Last Activity is very clear and this MANIPULATION of that specific date is what this is all about.

Why? Because companies called debt buyers (We were one of the largest) buy paper (bad debt) that is considered to be out of statute (past the date that they can report to the credit bureaus). AND If they simply apply 1.00 to each account, then that manipulates the DLA to RESET the Last Payment Date, EVEN THOUGH the DEBTOR NEVER EVER MADE A PAYMENT ON THE ACCOUNT.

In this case that is EXACTLY what appears to have happened. And if so, God help them.

The DLA is based upon a proactive measure from the DEBTOR not by a COLLECTOR or the owner of the portfolio.

If this is found to be true, AND if this is VERIFIED, GMAC WILL CERTAINLY HAVE A NATIONWIDE CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT ON THEIR HANDS.

Finally to all of our friends in the legal community, we need supporting case law on this issue. If you would please research this, we would appreciate the assistance!

We are going to start posting cases for your review:

I hope you are able to help me with a problem I’ve encountered with GMAC Mortgage Corp . The problem concerns the experience at your bank. The bank is located at North Olmstead, Ohio..

I am writing to make other consumers aware of the under handed tactics your company uses when a person falls on hard times and ends up behind on car payments with your company.
The latest tactic to help in repossessing a car is to tell an un-employed person via another company located in California phone number ( 1-800-964-2078 ext. 5829) that a check for a certain amount is due to be sent due to a union audit. You are then asked to be at a certain place and time to sign for it. The check never arrives, nor does Federal Express that is supposed to deliver it. This is all done in the hopes GMAC will know where the car is at a ceratain time to repo it. Funny that my boyfriend was at home waiting for it, but his car wasn’t and Federal Express never came.
I have tried to call the number of this company so eager to ship this check and know when he would be home to get it, only to find that when I call from my land line phone which they contacted him in the first place states that the number is no longer a working number. If I call on my mobile that they do no recognize, I get a voice-mail. Is this odd or what?
Seems that GMAC uses some pretty underhanded tactics. So if you are behind on your car payments and are threatened with a repo, do not fall for this. The number again that they use to try to trick you into being home so they can take your car by telling you that you have a check waiting(which there really is not) is 1-800-964-2078. All this is is a scam to send a repo guy for your car.

In the future I plan to take my business to other banks, and I’ll urge others to avoid banking with you.

Here’s the resolution I propose: Get a life.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to your prompt reply.

I hope you are able to help me with a problem I’ve encountered with GMAC Mortgage Corp . The problem concerns the experience at your bank. The bank is located at Noth Olmstead, Phone number 440-779-3317 Mike Frye..

My boyfriend who visits me alot got behind on his car payments. Somehow my home phone number was given as a contact for my boyfriend. Mike Frye called me at all hours of the day, numerous times during the day HARASSING ME. I told him many times to stop calling me, but he refused. I received calls in the mornings, afternoons and evenings, after I told him that it was my phone, my home, and my life he was making miserable. He did not stop!!!!!!!!!!!

In the future I plan to take my business to other banks, and I’ll urge others to avoid banking with you.

Here’s the resolution I propose: Teach this inconsiderate jerk of a person to stop harrassing innocent people. I do not have a loan with GMAC. My Cadillac is paid for. I do not need to be harrassed because I am dating a guy that does have a company like GMAC as a creditor. Leave me alone! He does not live here…..I do! Leave me alone.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to your prompt reply

I hope you are able to help me with a problem I’ve encountered with General Motors Acceptance Corporation. The problem concerns the experience at your bank. The bank is located at Dallas, TX..

I was leasing 2 vehicles from GMAC when my wife was diagnosed with terminal cancer in August of 2003. I went to my local Chevy dealer to tell them that I wouldn’t be using one of the vehicles after the impending outcome. I was told it shouldn’t be a problem, bring one of the vehicles in when I’m through using it. My wife passed away 2 weeks later, and then about 3 weeks after that, I took one of the vehicles to the dealer and was told that GMAC wouldn’t just let me out of the lease, I’d have to pay it off. Nice compassion from this “American” corporation. After making several phone calls and sending out letters, the response was ” a contract is a contract and they’d give me a 30 or 60 day extension” if I needed more time to make the payments and that they didn’t want to lose a “valued and loyal customer”. I’ve since then, turned in both vehicles, paid off the remainder of the leases and have vowed to NEVER AGAIN purchase or use a GM product and to spread this message to as many people as the Internet can reach.

In the future I plan to take my business to other banks, and I’ll urge others to avoid banking with you.

Here’s the resolution I propose: Have the higher up at GMAC to go fuck themselves.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to your prompt reply

hope you are able to help me with a problem I’ve encountered with General Motors Acceptance Corporation. The problem concerns the billing or payment at your bank. The payment should have been coming from Atlanta for acct ..

I had paid my lease account ahead thru July 2005. Unfortunately, my car was involved in a hit and run and was totaled on 6-9-04. I called that day and was told until the insurance contacted them, no one could do anything and they were not allowed to talk to me, only the insurance company. GMAC has known the car was totaled, there was full coverage through Nationwide Insurance, and GAP coverage for anything over. In other words, they were covered 100% less $100.00. They have been very uncooperative to assure me of returning my payments and actually have said they have to hold Nationwide’s check for 10 days for it to clear.

In the future I might just take my business to other banks, and I will probably urge others to avoid banking with you.

Here’s the resolution I propose: My payments have been an overpayment from March and as of the accident date,this payment should have been returned immediately. I cannot get a car until you release the money and it is now costing me $30 per day as of Monday 6/28/04 in order for me to get to work.
I expect GMAC to stop delaying payment to individuals when their coverage is guaranteed, reimburse the excess payments I have now had to make and stop being rude to individuals on the telephone. I have been told you can’t talk to me and you don’t have to advise me of the insurance situation – yet you have my money and it is costing me money additionally. I would expect there is a Consumer Law issue potentially in this circumstance. As of today, a check has supposedly been cut and of course, no one called to overnight it after all of this, so you will have your full ten days afterall.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to your prompt reply

In 1999 I purchased a Chevrolet Suburban through GMAC utilizing the SmartBuy program. Shortly thereafter my Mom was diagnosed with cancer. Needless to say funds were very tight throughout my mother’s recovery and our family’s priority was her medical bills. I was in constant contact with GMAC throught the hard times and they were very helpful with extending payments etc. I eventually became current with payments and ended the SmartBuy as agreed.

Come to find out GMAC reported multiple late payments to the credit bureaus. This was never indicated to me in any discussions. I am currently attempting to go back to school and this affecting my student loan rates.

As a result of this, I don’t know whether I will ever buy a car from you in the future, and I don’t know whether I can recommend your cars to people I know now.

Here’s what I would like to see you do to provide resolution: Please update my information with the three credit bureaus as never late or delete my entry entirely.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you soon

On February 21, 2004 I turned in my leased 2001 Chevrolet (GMAC account #) and drove home a new 2004 Pontiac, also another lease. 2 weeks later I received a letter saying I owed GMAC $434.60 for a missing key remote ($65) and for excess wear on 3 tires ($345). I was not given this information at the time of the trade. An inspection reportedly happened sometime afterwards. On March 9,2004 I spoke to a Mrs. Norma Nabors from GMAC at . I explained my concern of not being told this when I turned in the Chevrolet and found it unacceptable to be charged $115 each, for tires, when the local paper had advertisements starting at $40 each. I said, had I known about this, I would have gone out and purchased new tires for the car and then traded it in. (She did offer to write off the key remote for $65, but I did what I said I would do and drove back to the dealership and turned in the key remote). I offered her $200 to settle this matter. She said she agreed with me, but could only adjust it down to $225. After I told her I thought that was still too high: that I felt I was being taken advantage of, she said she would speak to her manager. I reminded her that I am a 20 year, devoted customer to GMAC, as well as a former General Motors (Pontiac) employee, from many years ago. I suggested she look up my account history and present that to the manager as well. She came back and said she would need to call me back the following day since the manager was going into a meeting and she couldn’t get an answer. I agreed to wait. 3 weeks went by and I did not hear from her. But, I received a second notice in the mail from GMAC saying I owed them $369.60. I called Mrs. Nabors again and she said she remembered me, but didn’t remember quoting me the $225 figure (but she remembered everything else we talked about). Once again, she said she would talk to her manager and call me the following day. Today is April 12, 2004 and I haven’t heard from her yet. But today I did receive a threatening letter from GMAC saying if I don’t pay the amount due they “will notify the credit bureaus of this loss” and “the matter may be referred to an attorney or collection agency.” This is the type of service they give to a loyal customer like me? They make false promises and don’t follow through?

In the future I might just take my business to other banks, and I will probably urge others to avoid banking with you.

Here’s the resolution I propose: I do not want GMAC to take advantage of me, a 20 year, long-term, loyal customer. I feel my offer of $200 is generous to replace 3 tires. I also feel their customer service is lacking. I never expected (nor have I ever received) such poor service from GMAC. My expectations were that we could have solved this problem back 4 weeks ago. I question as to whether or not the manager was ever informed, or perhaps is this delay and ignore experience part of their process? I hope not. I have lost my admiration and trust in GMAC because of this experience. I hope you can help me resolve this unfortunate issue and that in the future, customers will be treated more fairly and appropriately. I wonder if Toyota financing customers are treated in this same fashion? I must respond to GMAC in order to avoid their threats. I appreciate any and all help you may offer.

Sincerely,
John R.
GMAC Account #

Insurance is supposed to be something dependable, right? Obviously, something’s gone wrong. I’m writing with a complaint about the overall experience at GMAC Insurance and the frustration it’s causing me. I’m furious about this!

It’s an auto insurance policy. I have had the worst time of my life dealing with your insurance. It was recommended to me by a good friend and when I went to the agency, the broker filled out a quote for car insurance on my 1997 Cadillac Seville. The rates seemed too good to be true. Alas, they were. When the broker called me later in the week after getting my driver history, he said that my insurance would go up significantly since I had an accident 2 years ago. TWO years ago! I couldn’t believe it. My broker lied to me. I told him all I could remember about my driving history and I expected him to give me the rate he provided. I even signed a contract for that price! I am outraged!

If you want my honest opinion, I’ve been very dissatisfied from the start. Because of this, I’ll definitely find another insurance carrier when my policy expires. I will in no way recommend your company to anyone.

Here’s what I would like GMAC Insurance to do about this: Give me the original rate. When my renew request comes up in a year, I will not think twice about finding new insurance and a new broker!

I hope to hear from you in a timely manner so that this problem can be resolved quickly and dependably

THIS IS GOING TO BE AN INCREDIBLE STORY FOR THE MEDIA- SO KEEP SENDING IN YOUR COMPLAINTS AND WE WILL KEEP POSTING THEM.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant individual timely appealed after the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County (Florida), dismissed his six-count complaint against appellees, a vehicle corporations and dealership.

OVERVIEW: The individual co-signed a vehicle loan for his stepdaughter from the corporation. The individual sued the corporation and dealership, pleading counts for violations of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (Act) and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), fraud and deceit based on agency principles, and forgery. On appeal, the individual challenged the dismissal of his amended complaint with prejudice. Regarding the claims against the corporation, the appellate court held that the corporation qualified as a person under the Act, and the dismissal of that count had to be reversed; the FDUTPA cause of action should have survived dismissal, because the individual was a consumer and he alleged sufficient facts to show the corporation willfully harassed him and his family; but the individual could not use the Federal Trade Commission Holder Rule as a sword in the fraud and deceit claim. Regarding the claims against the dealership, the appellate court held that the individual stated a claim under the FDUTPA, but not for special damages; the individual’s claims for fraud and deceit were partially upheld; and the forgery alleged had no legal efficacy.

JUDGES: POLEN, C.J. STONE, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion. OPINION BY: POLEN

OPINION:
POLEN, C.J.

Clayton Eugene Schauer timely appeals after the court dismissed his six-count complaint against General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) and Morse Operations, Inc., d/b/a Ed Morse Chevrolet (Morse). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

This case arose from the sale of a used car byMorse to Schauer’s stepdaughter. Schauer co-signed his stepdaughter’s loan from GMAC. He later sued Morse and GMAC. He pled three separate counts against GMAC: violations of the Florida[*2] Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), and fraud and deceit based on agency principles. As to Morse, he pled violation of the FDUTPA, fraud and deceit, and forgery.

He amended his complaint two times. The court subsequently dismissed the second amended complaint as to GMAC with prejudice, but allowed him to amend his complaint as to Morse. It later dismissed his third amended complaint as to Morse with prejudice. This appeal followed.

FLORIDA CONSUMER COLLECTION PRACTICES CLAIM AGAINST GMAC
Schauer first argues the court erred in dismissing his Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act claim against GMAC. The Act seeks in part to protect in-state consumers from the illegal and/or unscrupulous practices of debt collectors and other persons. n1 Coastal Physician Svcs. of Broward County, Inc. v. Ortiz, 764 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(on reh’g); § 559.72, Fla. Stat. (1999). Section 559.55(6), Florida Statutes (1999), one of the sections comprising the Act, defines “debt collector” as one who “attempts to collect . . . debts owed or . . . due[*3] another.” The statute specifically excludes “any . . . creditor . . . collecting debts for such creditor,” as well as “a debt which was not in default at the time it was obtained by such person . . . .” § 559.55(6)(a), (f), Fla. Stat. (1999). It further defines “creditor” as “any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed.” § 559.55(3).n1 The Florida Act is different than its federal counterpart because it is not limited to debt collectors. Cf. 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq.

By virtue of Schauer’s allegations, GMAC is a creditor, as it extended him credit to buy the car. Because the allegations addressed GMAC’s attempts to collect on this loan, GMAC cannot be considered a “debt collector” under sections 559.55(6)(a) and (f).

Still, Schauer maintains GMAC would still qualify as a “person” otherwise subject to the Act under section 559.72, Florida Statutes (1999). That section provides that “in collecting consumer debts, [*4] no person shall . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) The statute goes on to list certain prohibited acts or practices. Section 559.77, Florida Statutes (1999) provides that a debtor may bring a civil action against a person violating the Act for actual damages, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, punitive damages, and other equitable relief.

While the Act does not define the term “person,” it is not restricted to debt collectors. It also mandates that no person shall engage in certain practices in collecting consumer claims whether licensed by the division or not. This court has held that this language includes all allegedly unlawful attempts at collecting consumer claims. Williams v. Streeps Music Co., 333 So. 2d 65, 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); accord White v. Fed. Fin. Corp., 379 So. 2d 136, 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). As we hold GMAC qualifies as a person under the Act, we reverse dismissal of this count.

FDUTPA CLAIM AGAINST GMAC

Schauer also challenges dismissal of his FDUTPA claim against GMAC. This Act protects consumers from those “who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts[*5] or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” § 501.202(2), Fla. Stat. (1999). A violation of the Act may be based on “unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices.” § 501.203(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (1999).

Construing the Act liberally as we must, Cummings v. Warren Henry Motors, Inc., 648 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), Schauer is a consumer. See § 501.203(7), Fla. Stat. (1999). GMAC’s alleged actions also fell within the statute’s broad definition of “trade or commerce.” n2 As Schauer alleged sufficient facts to show GMAC violated this Act by willfully harassing him and his family with respect to the collection of its debt, this cause of action should have survived dismissal.

n2 “Trade or commerce” is defined by the Act as “the advertising, soliciting, providing, offering, or distributing, whether by sale, rental, or otherwise, of any good or service . . .” § 501.203(8), Fla. Stat. (1999)(emphasis supplied).

[*6]
FRAUD AND DECEIT CLAIM AGAINST GMAC
He further argues he sufficiently pled a claim against GMAC for fraud and deceit arising out of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Holder Rule. The FTC Holder Rule provides, in part, In connection with any sale or lease of goods or services to consumers, . . . it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice . . . for a seller, directly or indirectly, to:

(a) Take or receive a consumer credit contract which fails to contain the following provision. . . .

NOTICE

ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.
16 C.F.R. § 433.2(a) (1999).

While “the rule is expressly designed to compel creditors to either absorb seller misconduct costs or seek reimbursement of those costs from sellers,” Tinker v. DeMaria Porsche Audi, Inc., 459 So. 2d 487, 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)(footnotes omitted), review denied, 471 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1985), it is ordinarily used as[*7] a shield, not as a sword for consumers to seek affirmative relief. A recognized exception to this limitation is where a consumer maintains an action against the creditor for a return of monies paid on an account. 40 Fed. Reg. 53,505, 53,524 (1975)(cited in Crews v. Altavista Motors, Inc., 65 F. Supp. 2d 388, 390 (W.D. Va. 1999)). However, such relief “will only be available where a seller’s breach is so substantial that a court is persuaded that rescission and restitution are justified.” Id. Because Schauer did not allege that he ever made any payments to GMAC, or that his claim was so large that it exceeded the remainder of any debt owed to GMAC, we do not believe he alleged the rare situation where he could use this rule as a sword. Accordingly, we affirm dismissal of this count. Cf. Crews, 65 F. Supp. 2d at 391; Irby- Greene v. M.O.R., Inc., 79 F. Supp. 2d 630 (E.D. Va. 2000).

FDUTPA CLAIM AGAINST MORSE

In this count, Schauer alleged that Morse deceived him by fraudulently inducing him to sign the subject retail sales installment contract, charging him premiums for insurance it never obtained, and misrepresenting[*8] his true obligations without ever advising him of the nature of his liability. While Morse argues Schauer should be deemed to have read the contract before he signed it, the allegations still suggest at a minimum that Morse’s actions were unfair or deceptive. Construing the Act liberally, and taking his allegations as true, we hold he stated a cause of action under the Act. However, to the extent that he alleged consequential, speculative, or other special damages, we agree with Morse that same may not be recovered under the Act. See Urling v. Helms Exterminators, Inc., 468 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); § 501.211, Fla. Stat. (1999).

FRAUD AND DECEIT CLAIM AGAINST MORSE

In this count, he alleged that Morse fraudulently induced him to sign the subject contract, forged his name to the credit application form, and had him sign unspecified documents which contained blanks. In an action for fraud and deceit, a plaintiff must allege with reasonable certainty that 1) the defendant made a representation on which the plaintiff was meant to act; 2) the defendant knew the representation was false; and 3) the plaintiff relied on the representation[*9] to his detriment. Am. Intern. Land Corp. v. Hanna, 323 So. 2d 567, 569-70 (Fla. 1975)(footnotes omitted).
In this regard, we hold Schauer stated a cause of action to the extent he alleged that 1) Morse told him the papers he signed were an insignificant necessity to his stepdaughter’s obtaining credit; 2) Morse forged his signature to the credit application; and 3) Morse had him sign documents that contained blanks. However, we affirm dismissal with respect to the remainder of the allegations in this count as they were not alleged with reasonable certainty, and further amendment would not cure these defects.

FORGERY CLAIM AGAINST MORSE

Finally, he argues his forgery claim against Morse should have survived dismissal. “Forgery exists under Florida law where the defendant makes a writing which falsely purports to be the writing of another, made with the intent to injure or defraud any person.” Jamnadas v. Singh, 731 So. 2d 69, 71 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) The instrument in question must have some legal efficacy. Id. (citation omitted); § 831.01, Fla. Stat. (1999). As Morse argues, forging his signature to the credit application[*10] would have had no legal efficacy because he was not obligated to sign or make payments under the separate retail sales installment contract. As such, we affirm dismissal of this count.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

I am no Lawyer you all know this, but I sure as hell fight, in any way I can and i do not care a hoot about anything and any body.

Now I am at war with the repo man and guess what I am going to win with flying colors. I have called so many lawyers and not one of them is able to repay me for the support and help I rendered them. Suckers.

Comes now, Mario Kenny and Yolanda Kenny and answers to the claim of Replevin and states a counterclaim that the plaintiff has no right to our property based on the following:

1. On the 22nd of September, 2009 Gabriel and unidentified Latin male trespassed my private property attempting break into my covered and closed car garage, to wrongly repossess my automobile. He was confronted by my wife Yolanda Kenny who instructed that he must leave; he refused to leave the subject property, located at 789 NE 83 Street, Miami, Florida 33138.

2. On September 22, 2009 the said Latin male returned and failed to identify himself, on the instant when Mario Kenny confronted him, as he was inside the bounds of my property, he purported to be a police officer and refused to leave my property. The Latin male came to the property again, in a white pick truck bearing the Florida plate number 769 LGG and a number R 2300003. The Latin male did not at no time during the conversation, render his identity when asked.

3. The Latin male, I have, after investigation identified as Gabriel, Gabriel called the police. The Police units 1323 and 1322 responded to the call, Gabriel reported“a valid dispute” law enforcement responded, this action took place at approximately 8pm on September 22, 2009.

4. The Plaintiff through his agent informed Law enforcement units 1323 and 1322 that they had an order to repossess my automobile, the plaintiff through its agents , violated the fair Dept Collections Practices Act by using Law enforcement as money collectors without first filing a Law suit.

5. The Plaintiff though and by its agents further violated the FDCPA, by presenting to me and placing a notice in my mail and at the door knob of the subject property a notice in an unsealed envelope.

6. The Plaintiff though and by its agents further violated the FDCPA by searching through defendants mail box to validate the address and the name of the occupants of the home and property, which they intruded upon.

7. The Plaintiff though and by its agents further, violated the FDCPA by presenting to Law enforcement a door knob flier with depicted, emblems and language as if the defendant was in a legal, See A through D attached and made a part thereof.

8. Approximately at 8pm, a Latin man came to my property with three (3) tow trucks with, blearing, flashing lights, displaying behavior that was in keeping with blatant disturbance of the peace, using foul language, as FUCK YOU, and “I am your worst nightmare”, demanding to enter my private property, to seek an automobile which the Latin man claimed was “stolen property”, and the Latin Man claimed was housed within my closed and covered garage, on and in my private property. Said Latin man drove a black Hummer, bearing the Florida License plate number AHB70. Said Latin man failed to identify himself by name when asked by me (Mario Kenny).

As these losses have grown, taxpayers are being forced to absorb these losses. As an example, my firm recently received nearly $12 billion from American International Group (which has effectively been nationalized with $180 billion in taxpayer funds). Essentially, every American household sent my firm a check for $105.
The reason for this payment: my firm bought credit default swaps from A.I.G. In plain-speak, we bought unregulated “insurance” from A.I.G. to cover losses from bad trades. What did taxpayers get in return?

Nothing. Taxpayers simply paid an I.O.U. triggered by our gambling losses. (Note: This $12 billion payment was more than 50 percent of our market capitalization at the time of its disclosure).

SUNDAY, MAY 10, 2009

Deutsche Bank’s Socialization Of Risk Culture Redux

Posted by Tyler Durden at 1:43 PM
Deepak Moorjani shares the below letter, which initially appeared in NYT’s DealBook, but subsequently was taken down for reasons known, and now only a big gaping 404 hole remains in its place (http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/another-view-deutsche-banks-culture-of-risk/). Moorjani, who is currently involved in litigation with Deutsche Bank, shares his perspectives on his former firm’s risk policies and the culture and reward structure that encouraged these, with Zero Hedge readers. The story is all the more relevant as it intersects a core theme for Zero Hedge, that of commercial real estate and the skewed risk/return investment perspective from the bubble years, which we may very well be returning to if the administration gets its releveraging ways.
When speaking about the banking sector, many people mention a “subprime crisis” or a “financial crisis” as if recent write-downs and losses are caused by external events. Where some see coincidence, I see consequence. At Deutsche Bank, I consider our poor results to be a “management debacle,” a natural outcome of unfettered risk-taking, poor incentive structures and the lack of a system of checks and balances.

In my opinion, we took too much risk, failed to manage this risk and broke too many laws and regulations.

For more than two years, I have been working internally to improve the inadequate governance structures and lax internal controls within Deutsche Bank. I joined the firm in 2006 in one of its foreign subsidiaries, and my due diligence revealed management failures as well as inconsistencies between our internal actions and our external statements.

Beginning in late 2006, my conclusions were disseminated internally on a number of occasions, and while not always eloquently stated, my concerns were honest. Unfortunately, raising concerns internally is like trying to clap with one hand. The firm retaliated, and this raises the question: Is it possible to question management’s performance without being marginalized, even when this marginalization might be a violation of law? Two years later, our mounting losses are gaining attention, and I offer my experiences and my thoughts in the hopes of contributing to the shareholder and public policy debate.

Background

Born and raised in Toledo, Ohio, I was infused with Midwestern values of hard work, individual responsibility, honesty, quiet integrity and fiscal prudence. After careers in New York City and Menlo Park, Calif., I moved to Tokyo in 2005 to pursue investments in corporate restructurings and distressed assets. At the time, the Japanese market offered unique opportunities.

I joined Deutsche Bank in 2006 to build an investment business within its commercial real estate lending operation, and I was generally surprised by the aggressive sales culture within our firm. While many people consider the banking sector’s problems to be caused by residential lending, I witnessed multibillion-dollar loan proposals for commercial property.

With funds provided at more than 90 percent loan-to-value, these loans were “priced to perfection” and assumed that property prices and rental rates would continue to rise. For perspective, a single billion-dollar commercial real estate loan is equivalent to 2,000 residential loans of $500,000.

In general, my colleagues are hard-working, decent people, but the system of incentives encourages people to take risks. I have seen honest, high-integrity people lose themselves in this cowboy culture, because more risk-taking generally means better pay. Bizarrely, this risk comes with virtually no liability, and this system of O.P.M. (Other People’s Money) insures that the firm absorbs any losses from bad trades.

As these losses have grown, taxpayers are being forced to absorb these losses. As an example, my firm recently received nearly $12 billion from American International Group (which has effectively been nationalized with $180 billion in taxpayer funds). Essentially, every American household sent my firm a check for $105. The reason for this payment: my firm bought credit default swaps from A.I.G. In plain-speak, we bought unregulated “insurance” from A.I.G. to cover losses from bad trades. What did taxpayers get in return?

Nothing. Taxpayers simply paid an I.O.U. triggered by our gambling losses. (Note: This $12 billion payment was more than 50 percent of our market capitalization at the time of its disclosure).

Solution

While shareholders (and taxpayers) are becoming angry, I think they should be furious. Our management has eviscerated the concept of moral hazard by systematically adopting pay schemes that reward excessive risk-taking despite its long-term implications. If governments have decided to socialize our losses, governments are implicitly saying that the banking industry is fundamentally sound. In effect, governments would be voting in favor of the status quo. In my opinion, the status quo does not work, and we need to address the core issues of structure and compensation. Capping executive compensation is a first step, but as a solution, it is insufficient.

While I am on the “inside” at Deutsche Bank, much of my career has been within partnership structures, and I continue to advocate a partnership-like structure for our firm. With collective liability, partnerships provide a proper alignment of incentives between management and its stakeholders. In a partnership, bonuses are paid from co-investments and profits, not revenues. Losses are shared, and these losses introduce an appropriate penalty for excessive risk-taking. If profits are overstated in one-year, the already-paid bonuses are clawed-back (returned to the partnership).

Conclusion

Our asymmetric incentive structure is fundamental to our problems. The question remains: Do we maintain the status quo and naively hope for better results, or do we begin to implement structural reforms in order to align the incentives? If taxpayers are forced to pay for the losses from bad trades, this socialization of risk adds to the moral hazard problem. This socialization of risk actually encourages more aggressive behavior in the future.

The call-option bonus structure has led to the ascendency of sales over risk management. Maintaining the status quo is not a smart bet, and we cannot afford to ignore the fundamental issues of structure and compensation. We need to introduce personal responsibility into the system, because accountability is glaringly absent. The collective liability aspect of partnerships achieves this goal; collective liability is the most powerful way to align incentives and encourage rational risk-taking.

As an employee and as a shareholder, I am doing my part to build a better firm. Unfortunately, the political landscape within our firm finds it difficult to assimilate any criticism of management’s leadership. To my fellow employees, I ask that you resist the incentives that reward groupthink. To my fellow shareholders, I ask that you implement the changes needed to address our asymmetric incentive structures.

As Jesus said, “many would come in his name, and
mislead the multitude.”
When a “good preacher” does arrive on the scene,
he very often gets the “Elmer Gantry” treatment when
his past indiscretions are dragged out in public.
For this reason, many people who could be leaders,
fade into the woodwork because they don’t want to be
embarrassed. Eliot Spitzer comes to mind, a good man who fell down once, who will never be allowed
to rise again when we need him to track down the bad
guys. He’ll get the “Elmer Gantry” treatment if he tries!

In the Hispanic communities all over the country, the so called christian, evangelical, etc, we very busy setting up seminars for their congregation and were encouraging their folk to buy homes, refinance and hungrily asking for the 10% in return from their congregations on top of the kick backs they were getting from the lenders, real estate agents and closing agents. Some in Virginia, Maryland and DC decidedly had their wives, sons and daugthers become loan officers, real estate agents and take advantage of their in house captive audience. Now that the tables have turned and after all the fraud they committed these same actors are selling loan modifications as if there is no tomorrow. When you bring up the “file a law suit”, they quickly shut you down and do not allow reason and common sense to permeate into their pulpit.

It is really a shame. But I do know it happened in almost every single segment of the religious community and their followers.

I think the may have a very hard time trying to explain to GOD whatever they did, whatever they put on those loan applications and how they were able to finance their lavish lifestyle.

Some hire prostitutes, some molest kids, but some are plain thieves and criminals with the gift of GAB.

I am still waiting for our media outlets to start bringing the real story out. I think I will grow old, and for our government to start respecting the constitution, and for lawyers to start realizing that we are the victims, and they should stop dumping on us and stop celebrating the crooks.

If this is the “Prosperity Gospel,” then Lloyd Blankfein must be campaigning to be patron saint of the movement.

— “The chief executive of Goldman Sachs, which has attracted widespread media attention over the size of its staff bonuses, believes banks serve a social purpose and are doing “God’s work”.

In an interview with London’s Sunday Times newspaper, Lloyd Blankfein also said he believed big profits and bonuses at banks were a sign that the world economy was recovering.

“We help companies to grow by helping them to raise capital. Companies that grow create wealth. This, in turn, allows people to have jobs that create more growth and more wealth. We have a social purpose,” the head of Goldman Sachs told the paper. “